Clearance Items

This thread will be a kind of bargain bin for posts that are deemed to be

intentionally inflammatory,

willfully careless or of dubious factuality,

generally unhelpful,

or otherwise of low quality.

Posts moved to this thread will be left here so that people can rummage through them in the event that there is something redeeming to be found in one of them. Posts may still end up in the playground thread as well (e.g., when they're interesting but not on the topic of the original thread). As with the playground thread, people are free to continue conversations here if they like.

But you will be back. Just because you disagree with someone who is both intelligent and articulate does not mean to either give up or leave in a huff. Just up your game and give better arguments. "I'm done with LF" is weaksauce as the kids would say.

BTW,

He would not spend so much time here posting his "nonsense" just to prove that he is superior. It was covered along time ago. Just that the evidence has to be strong. I am not sure why any one of us would want to believe someones word over scientific proof anyway. That is what got us in this mess to begin with.

First of all, I'd stop to communicate with schematically thinking trolls at this forum, being Me356. They apparently never did any experiment, failed the less and they also have no experience with adventurous Bob Greenyer, who already announced many breakthroughs - but none of them succeeded yet. Why every experiment must be announced at public before it's actually prepared and checked first? What is the meaning of such an attitude? Greenyer is amateur and he makes damage the whole LENR community. I'd stop to collaborate with him after such an experience, being Me356. For the record, I'd also never give him my latest technology.

Who told you that that me356 did not agree to publication? Where did you get this information?

see above:

Quote

I was not the person who made a schedule of the test. I have never said that it is ready for testing. Tested device was far from ready and MFMP was informed about it weeks ago. At this day I have sent a message to Bob G. that it is not good to schedule without me. Also I have stated for a few times in the mail

that day, that it is really not ready. At this time the tickets were already billed.

I'd say, one of us cannot read English. This is first time, when I superseded native English speaker.

There is nothing wrong with moderation here even if people disagree with it. It is the policy of the permaban that is broken and that will not be addressed. So I have beaten that horse to death once 5x over. I never mentioned this before since I think I have a good understanding of why it was used. But months ago when I bitchzed about it and requested a TOS I was pointed to some offsite stuff on how to behave. My point was completely lost so I will remake it.

If you are taking money from ad revenues on your website you fundamentally have obligations to ensure proper discourse hence moderation, I get that, but without a TOS you do not have that at all. But we do things differently in the US.

And finally as I kick that dead horse one more time. Any time we lose a voice we all lose. This my way or I am bye bye way is not adult. And you know I would not say it if it was either not true or i did not respect the reason. Let bygones be bygones.

You seem to disagree, and believe the Li isotopic profile demonstrates that somehow. So, please explain, with logic or evidence, why you think that the Uppsala ash analysis cannot be reasonably explained as the result of Rossi tampering versus transmutation.

I sincerely and earnestly am interested in challenges to this conclusion, as it helps me and others on this forum learn.

sigmoidal
: As an inventor of fake facts it's up to you to proove, where we can buy 99% 62Ni (20% molar content) mixed with 80% molar content of 6,7Li with an unnatural isotope ratio.

You have to explain us how somebody could generate such a mixture and how such a mixture can survive 1300C - just to be stable in one grain...

What I learnt of you: The fake factsthat Brian once invented must hold for ever... and that pure means 16% content like for orange juice.

PS: Before you start the next desperate move, keep in mind that the table you consulted does not show all isotopes.., masses 23, 69 were also found in high percentages.. thus my figures given 20/80% are in reality much lower...

sigmoidal
: As an inventor of fake facts it's up to you to proove, where we can buy 99% 62Ni (20% molar content) mixed with 80% molar content of 6,7Li with an unnatural isotope ratio.

You have to explain us how somebody could generate such a mixture and how such a mixture can survive 1300C - just to be stable in one grain...

What I learnt of you: The fake factsthat Brian once invented must hold for ever... and that pure means 16% content like for orange juice.

PS: Before you start the next desperate move, keep in mind that the table you consulted does not show all isotopes.., masses 23, 69 were also found in high percentages.. thus my figures given 20/80% are in reality much lower...

Do you see Dolly the Sheep as a "fact from heaven"? It's never been replicated.

Try checking the literature. Mammalian cloning is a well established art/technology replicated hundreds of time. Specifically cloning a sheep by transfer of a cell nucleus is very inefficient (almost 300 attempts were made before Dolly was conceived) but ... well here, read this for openers and Google "mammalian cloning" to educate yourself about this, which you badly need: http://www.crystalinks.com/cloningsheep.html

Quote

You ask (I think) why are there not 150 rebuttal papers? Surely that is obvious. This is a phenomena that is broadly viewed as experimental error with unconvincing and incoherent results. The set of papers with coherent results KS shows could be something mundane - but most people don't bother because the effect is so low when if nuclear it would be expected to be easy to get it much higher and easily measurable. The papers showing excess heat are viewed as unconvincing. Writing a refutation is both something few people want to do (what is the point) and something few people want to publish (it makes no contribution, rebutting something not generally accepted is a particularly pointless thing to do).

Exactly.

And while there may be 150 papers, there are far fewer authors. Most are what some critics derisively call "the usual suspects."

Somebody asked why I don't write about the situation with hot fusion. I can't write about everything. I have not followed hot fusion but as I understand it, predictions of success were far premature and a ton of money is being spent in research. Far as I know, nobody is fraudulently claiming a market-ready technology using hot fusion. That was my interest in Sniffex, Steorn, Rossi, Defkalion, McKubre and other Papp proponents, Miley, Swartz and Brillouin, etc. etc. -- they claimed dramatic achievements and exhibited the behavior of frauds.

Post moved here because of over-broad characterisation of too many people as 'frauds' and following an external complaint. Alan,

Saying that people "exhibit the behavior of frauds" is not the same as calling them frauds. Doing science by press release promising all kinds of wonders is indeed the MO of frauds. That sort of behavior has sullied the reputation many LENR researchers regardless of their legitimacy. Maryyugo's interest in these people was piqued by this behavior, since it is possible fraudulent activity that is "her" primary focus. Go ahead and defend the work of some of these people. Perhaps it is of high quality and warrants further attention. But making dramatic announcements of breakthroughs backed up with meager details year after year that never somehow go anywhere is not the behavior of respectable scientists.

Saying that people "exhibit the behavior of frauds" is not the same as calling them frauds. Doing science by press release promising all kinds of wonders is indeed the MO of frauds. That sort of behavior has sullied the reputation many LENR researchers regardless of their legitimacy. Maryyugo's interest in these people was piqued by this behavior, since it is possible fraudulent activity that is "her" primary focus. Go ahead and defend the work of some of these people. Perhaps it is of high quality and warrants further attention. But making dramatic announcements of breakthroughs backed up with meager details year after year that never somehow go anywhere is not the behavior of respectable scientists.

I find Mary's comments untactful, and would not make them myself. But I agree with this analysis: if all of the people she cited have behaved like this (I know some some have, no idea about others) then she is correct. Which is not the same as saying they are frauds.

Alan, I don't think your analogy holds at all although I am sure that you feel that you "got me" with it. There are many traits which fraud artists display as part of perpetrating their scams. These traits do not in themselves constitute fraudulent activity although they clearly exist to support that activity and, to the non-credulous, they are clearly suspicious. When we say that someone exhibits the behavior of a child molester, I don't think we are referring to anything other than them molesting children. I am not going to bother getting into the endless debate with you or anyone else who inexplicably and astoundingly still thinks Rossi has anything of value, but if you genuinely don't see his behavior as outrageously suspicious, then I leave you to your world view.

I am not bothered by what anyone says about Rossi at all, or Defkalion. All of that has been said a thousand times. so all of your comment above is way off target, you know zilch about my weltschmerz. As for endless debate, that will not happen, I assure you.

When people (MY) hiding behind an alias (no matter how well-worn) start dragging in claims of 'fraudulent behaviour' and proffer a laundry list which include the names of several perfectly respectable scientists, and when those claims generate immediate complaints from both inside and outside the forum I am going to act. And if I do not, so would another moderator.